Murray v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. That each of the instructions aslced for in the court below should have been given, and the refusal to give them is such error as ought to reverse the judgment. 12 East., 444; Koscoe, 139. Two propositions of law of importance to the appellant are contained in the three first instructions asked for and refused.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. That each of the instructions aslced for in the court below should have been given, and the refusal to give them is such error as ought to reverse the judgment. 12 East., 444; Koscoe, 139. Two propositions of law of importance to the appellant are contained in the three first instructions asked for and refused. The one is, that possession of the premises is such evidence of title in Murray, that Armstrong purchased with full notice of all the rights of Murray, which notice is an implication of law arising out of possession. The other is, that the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
Armstrong brought an action of ejectment against Murray in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county., to recover possession of a small tenement in the county in which he recovered judgment.
William Bailey was the owner of the lot in controversy, and by a deed indented, executed by his agent, P. Dillon, leased the same to Murray on the 15th September, 1842, for 5 years. Among other things, Murray stipulated to fence the lot on or before the first May, 1843, and it was' further agreed that if Murray or his assigns failed to keep and fulfil the covenants and stipulations contained in the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Carteri v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Hrovat v. BinghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- McDonald v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Potter v. BassettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889